The Scientific Method Versus Scientific Evidence In the Courtroom

An anonymous reader writes "A few months back, the National Research Council and the Federal Judicial Center published the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, the primary guide for federal judges in the United States trying to evaluate scientific evidence. One chapter in particular, 'How Science Works,' written by David Goodstein (Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at CalTech), has raised the issue of how judges should see science in the courtroom: should they look at science to see if it matches our idealized view of the scientific method, or should they consider the realities of science, where people advocate for their own theories far more than they question them?"

Comments

Everyone in a courtroom has an agenda

[crazyjj]

realities of science, where people advocate for their own theories far more than they question them

If you're in a courtroom, you should ALWAYS assume than anyone presenting evidence has an agenda (because they almost always do). No defense or prosecution attorney is going to put a scientist (or any other witness) on the stand who is going to do anything but advocate for their version of the case. Any judge who isn't completely new or blind already knows that well.

There was a recent Frontline episode on this

[reubenavery]

Good watch: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/

One thing they didn't cover, however, was the horror behind "expert" psychologists/psychiatrists and the damage they inflict.

Re:There was a recent Frontline episode on this

[Grizzley9]

Good watch: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/ One thing they didn't cover, however, was the horror behind "expert" psychologists/psychiatrists and the damage they inflict.

Saw this too and it should be a req'd link in the summary. They shed a lot of light on how most of forensic evidence does not hold to the scientific method and that many so called expert court witnesses are anything but, even with the fancy sounding diploma mill accreditation.

Hidden Markov Model

[PPH]

Its a Hidden Markov Model problem. There is some underlying theory with a probability of being correct based on research. But the people presenting evidence in court do so through an additional set of weighting factors that govern their testimony based upon the underlying theoretical model. The testimony is what the judge and jury are able to observe. From it, they need to deduce the underlying model and probabilities.

Good luck expecting 12 people to understand this who have to have football (US) plays explained to them by TV announcers.

Re:I Simply Don't Agree with You

[ColdWetDog]

The point is that when scientists come into a courtroom as expert witnesses (or really any expert witness), the only agenda on their mind should be to relate to the court what they have discovered in their research. Not how much more funding they'll get when this hits the papers. Not how much the defense is paying them to say that in their professional opinion the client is insane.

While a nice idea, it doesn't seem to happen that way in practice. There are lists of professional experts whose slant on the subjects known prior to their being hired (and remember, they're hired). In many jurisdictions and in many fields, it doesn't take a whole lot of research, experience or much else to be an 'expert'. Since it works for both sides, you tend to get dueling experts and the jury is expected to make an informed decision based on the intricacies of their testimony and not on their showmanship, friendliness or appearance. Righto.

The scientific method and the legal method don't really mesh well most times. 'Science' very rarely produces black and white results. Shades of grey are tough to get across to lay people.